IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v33y2010i2p67-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Wasserman, Deborah L.

Abstract

This paper offers a framework for using a systems orientation and "foundational theory" to enhance theory-driven evaluations and logic models. The framework guides the process of identifying and explaining operative relationships and perspectives within human service program systems. Self-Determination Theory exemplifies how a foundational theory can be used to support the framework in a wide range of program evaluations. Two examples illustrate how applications of the framework have improved the evaluators' abilities to observe and explain program effect. In both exemplars improvements involved addressing and organizing into a single logic model heretofore seemingly disparate evaluation issues regarding valuing (by whose values); the role of organizational and program context; and evaluation anxiety and utilization.

Suggested Citation

  • Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:2:p:67-80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(09)00039-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Schmuck & Tim Kasser & Richard Ryan, 2000. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals: Their Structure and Relationship to Well-Being in German and U.S. College Students," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 225-241, May.
    2. Wandersman, Abraham & Imm, Pamela & Chinman, Matthew & Kaftarian, Shakeh, 2000. "Getting to outcomes: a results-based approach to accountability," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 389-395, August.
    3. Schalock, Robert L. & Bonham, Gordon S., 2003. "Measuring outcomes and managing for results," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 229-235, August.
    4. Cabrera, Derek & Colosi, Laura & Lobdell, Claire, 2008. "Systems thinking," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 299-310, August.
    5. Kaplan, Sue A. & Garrett, Katherine E., 2005. "The use of logic models by community-based initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 167-172, May.
    6. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2008. "A Response to paper "Systems Thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.: Next steps, a human service program system exemplar," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 327-329, August.
    7. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schalock, Robert L. & Lee, Tim & Verdugo, Miguel & Swart, Kees & Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Lee, Chun-Shin, 2014. "An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 110-118.
    2. Gates, Emily F., 2016. "Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 62-73.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:2:p:67-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.